Eight Senate Democrats Put Country Before Party, Vote to Reopen Government

Photo courtesy of Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times- Five senators in the Democratic caucus spoke at a news conference at Capitol Hill on Sunday night to explain why they voted with republicans.

TWLN Staff Writer Jay Roberts | The Weekly Ledger News | National News | November 11, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a moment of high political drama and deep division, eight members of the Senate Democratic Caucus broke ranks and voted with Republicans to reopen the federal government — not for partisan advantage, but because they judged that the American people could no longer wait. Their decision came Sunday night, when the Senate cleared a pivotal hurdle for a compromise funding bill that, among other things, will allow federal workers and our military personnel to receive paychecks, restore vital benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and stop further harm to struggling families.

Photo courtesy of AP - “Senators who broke with their party line to override the government shutdown for the good of the American people: Cortez Masto, Durbin, Fetterman, Hassan, Kaine, King, Rosen, and Shaheen.”

The eight senators are:

• Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada)

• Dick Durbin (Illinois)

• John Fetterman (Pennsylvania)

• Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire)

• Tim Kaine (Virginia)

• Angus King (Maine, Independent caucusing with Democrats)

• Jacky Rosen (Nevada)

• Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)

Putting the people first

These lawmakers argued that the pain of the shutdown — unpaid federal employees, active-duty military service members still on the job but not receiving pay, food-stamp recipients facing delays, and general disruption for families — had become intolerable. Fetterman, for example, said: “Feed everyone. Pay our military, government workers … Country over party.”

Cortez Masto noted that in her home state of Nevada, she was seeing “lines like I haven’t seen since the pandemic” at food banks, and she said waiting for an all-or-nothing health-care victory would only prolong the suffering.

Angus King, a longtime moderate and negotiator, explained it this way: “Our judgment was that [the shutdown] will not produce the result [we want]. … At some point, you have to decide what is the best strategic step forward.”

Party backlash and political risk

The decision did not come without cost. The move was met with sharp criticism from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, with voices labeling the vote “a betrayal,” “pathetic,” or a surrender before the fight for Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax-credit extensions had been won. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called it “a very, very bad vote.”

Yet supporters of the move say the true betrayal would have been to let the shutdown drag on while real people suffered. As Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, said of the senators: they “decided to put principle over their personal politics.”

Why the timing and stakes are real

This vote came in the context of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, triggered by an impasse over funding and policy priorities. The bill that moved forward includes funding through Jan. 30, 2026, and assures that federal workers will be reinstated or back-paid, and that SNAP benefit lines and other critical safety-net supports will resume without further delay.

It is also worth noting that the deal does not yet guarantee the extension of ACA premium tax credits — a key demand of many Democrats and progressives — making the vote especially controversial within the party.

What this means for the local level (and for you)

For our readers here at The Weekly Ledger News, this vote matters in tangible ways:

• Federal workers, contractors, and businesses that rely on them are now closer to being paid and operating normally again.

• Active-duty service members and their families can breathe a bit easier, knowing their pay and benefits are on a more certain footing.

• Lower-income Americans who rely on SNAP or other benefits can have greater assurance that the safety nets will function again.

• The broader implication: elected officials sometimes must step outside partisan trenches to serve constituents and the country.

Closing thought

In today’s hyper-polarized climate, it’s easy for party loyalty to become the default. But the eight senators who broke with their caucus chose a different path—one that prioritized immediate human impact, though it came with risk. Whether you agree with each of their votes or not, their actions raise a larger question: Is it a betrayal of the party to serve the people? Or is it the fulfillment of public service?

“This deal guarantees that federal workers are protected, SNAP lines can resume and the government can reopen — waiting longer will only deepen the pain.” — Sen. Maggie Hassan